What is Creationism?

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by lucaspa
As long as you teach them like you teach phlogiston theory or geocentrism -- as falsified theories -- I have no problem. 

Ok, as long as you teach that macro evolution is a falsified theory, then I have no problem with you teaching it. You could use it as a classic text book example of knowledge without wisdom.

 

[Arikay]

How would this be?

Originally posted by JohnR7
Ok, as long as you teach that macro evolution is a falsified theory, then I have no problem with you teaching it. You could use it as a classic text book example of knowledge without wisdom.

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Ok, as long as you teach that macro evolution is a falsified theory, then I have no problem with you teaching it. You could use it as a classic text book example of knowledge without wisdom.

LOL god you are funny.

 

[RufusAtticus]

JohnR7,

Find me a single scientific source that shows that "macroevolution" has been falsified. That will be hard though considering that macroevolution is an observation and not a theory or hypothesis.

 

[webboffin]

God gives us free will to believe in what we want to believe.
Mainstream acceptance is not neccesarily the truth it is just general acceptance of what belief in the truth is.
It was mainstream once to believe that the Earth was flat [though not found in the Bible] and it was untrue.
People believe what they want to believe and a person who believes in creation will do so as those who wish not. Just a question of what you put your faith in. Some in science others in the divine. Or a bit of both!

 

[ikester7579]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Creationism is not restricted to biblical creationism.



Do you belive in a solid sky that separates upperwaters from us? Can you show me the floodgates in this sky? If not then you don't accept the plain sense of the words. For all their claims of taking the word at face value, creationist still read alot into their bible. For instance, find me passages that describe a post-flood ice age or post-flood biological radiation. Can't do it huh? Yet these are two things advocated by various creationists, with neither scriptural nor empirical support.

And if I answered these questions what would you say? And how would you say it? Creation has been around a lot longer than Evolution. And Evolution was not thought up by Darwin. He just took the idea and added his idea of natural selection. To select something takes an act. Darwin acted on his idea just as God acted on creation.

 

[ikester7579]

[You can make Scripture say whatever you like if you use the right interpretationQUOTE]Originally posted by RufusAtticus
And that is how we get creationists. . . . [/QUOTE]

 

Yep, And there's a curse in the Bible for those who do this. I'm not sure of the verse but I do remember what it said. If you change God's word by one dot or title. Your name shall be blotted from the book of life. So if you use God's word to make your own religion that's what can happen to you. If someone knows where it's at post it.

For those who do not understand. If your name is not in the book of life you go to a place you will not like. I do not say this. God's word does. So don't argue this with me. Look it up.

Also, if you find yourself in front of the great white throne. Lets just say your in big trouble with no way out.      

 

[Micaiah]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
JohnR7,

Find me a single scientific source that shows that "macroevolution" has been falsified. That will be hard though considering that macroevolution is an observation and not a theory or hypothesis.

That is not hard. There is insufficient evidence to confirm for example that man and apes came from a common anscestory. If you accept this as scientific fact Rufus, you are more easily convinced than I thought. We don't need to disprove your theory, we let the evidence speak for itself. There just isn't enough of it and what there is confirms that man and apes are and always have been different.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Micaiah
That is not hard.

If it is not hard, then give me a source.

There is insufficient evidence to confirm for example that man and apes came from a common anscestory. If you accept this as scientific fact Rufus, you are more easily convinced than I thought. We don't need to disprove your theory, we let the evidence speak for itself. There just isn't enough of it and what there is confirms that man and apes are and always have been different.

You say there is insufficient evidence and you want the evidence to speak for itself. However, before you can say that you need to catalog for us the evidence. To make an argument that the evidence is insufficient you need to atleast show what evidence exists. In other words please answer the following question. "What evidence does biology use to show that humans and the other great apes share a common ancestor?"

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by ikester7579
And if I answered these questions what would you say? And how would you say it? Creation has been around a lot longer than Evolution. And Evolution was not thought up by Darwin. He just took the idea and added his idea of natural selection. To select something takes an act. Darwin acted on his idea just as God acted on creation.

And this has exactly what to do with my point?

 

[Micaiah]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
If it is not hard, then give me a source.

You say there is insufficient evidence and you want the evidence to speak for itself. However, before you can say that you need to catalog for us the evidence. To make an argument that the evidence is insufficient you need to atleast show what evidence exists. In other words please answer the following question. "What evidence does biology use to show that humans and the other great apes share a common ancestor?"

I would have though the burden of proof rests with you my friend. What is your best catalogue of human fossils?

Darwin recognised the fossil record didn't support his general theory. Some assert the punctuated equilibria model of evolution was developed to explain the lack of fossils.

Mary Leakey on the constructing of the family trees: "... in the present state of knowledge, I do not believe it is possible to fit the known hominid fossils into a reliable pattern. [Brigitte Senut "Humural Outlines in Some Hominoid Primates and in Plio-pleistocene Hominids" American Journal of Physical Anthropology 56:3 (November 1981): 275-83]

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Ok, as long as you teach that macro evolution is a falsified theory, then I have no problem with you teaching it. 

Can't do that. It's tested and supported.  Not falsified.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Micaiah
I would have though the burden of proof rests with you my friend.

It is not my place to prove your claim that the evidence is insufficient. You made the claim. You need to support it. Of course to do that you wpuld have to be willing to catalog the evidence that is used to support common ancestory among the primates and then show why it is insufficient. You better start working there is a lot of evidence to cover.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Micaiah
How is it that some Christians can claim Scripture sanctions homosexuality and even so called Christians deny the resurrection of Christ? You can make Scripture say whatever you like if you use the right interpretation.

  As creationists make Scripture say whatever they want it to.

As I said, you are arguing your interpretation of Scripture against theirs.  You don't like some interpretations and think they are wrong.  However, can't you see the beam in your own eye and recognize that your interpretation is also wrong?

One way to check Scripture is against extrabiblical evidence.  That's what the whole schtick about prophecies coming true is about, isn't it? 

This checking is especially valuable when the extrabiblical evidence is the physical universe.  Since you believe that God created it all, then everything in it had to be placed there by God, didnn't it? Including the evidence that shouts "Evolution!" and "Not special creation!"

God's Creation cannot contradict God's Word, can it?  Since the science is using evidence placed directly by God and you are using your interpretation of God's Word, which should be more accurate?

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both."  Bacon: Advancement of Learning

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by ikester7579
[
Also, if you find yourself in front of the great white throne. Lets just say your in big trouble with no way out. 

I always wonder what creationists are going to say to God when they have to go before God and admit that they have denied Him.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Micaiah
That is not hard. There is insufficient evidence to confirm for example that man and apes came from a common anscestory. If you accept this as scientific fact Rufus, you are more easily convinced than I thought. We don't need to disprove your theory, we let the evidence speak for itself. There just isn't enough of it and what there is confirms that man and apes are and always have been different.

First, you do have to disprove a theory.  Absolute requirement. Without falsification a theory remains on the table.  You should be happy about this, because the hypothesis that God created the universe can't be falsified and therefore, in science, stays on the table.

Second, saying evidence is "insufficient" sounds just like atheists like Morat and Jerry saying that they don't believe because there is no good reason to.  It has seemed to me over the last 3 years that creationism and atheism are very similar.  Here is another similarity.

There is a complete transitional series of individuals linking H. sapiens to H. erectus to H. habilis to A. afarensis. Considering the rarity of transitional series, it is as though God is shouting at you "I did it by evolution! Pay attention!"  Of course, you could always go back to Descent of Man and Huxley's original work that convinced people of evolution to begin with.

Finally, that you find the evidence "insufficient" has nothing to do with it.  It says something about your personality that you won't accept the evidence, but nothing about the evidence.  The person on trial doesn't have to accept the evidence that he is guilty for the rest of us to do so.  The hypothesis that humans and apes are separate creations was falsified long agon.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by ikester7579
And if I answered these questions what would you say? And how would you say it? Creation has been around a lot longer than Evolution. And Evolution was not thought up by Darwin. He just took the idea and added his idea of natural selection. To select something takes an act. Darwin acted on his idea just as God acted on creation.

"Creation" is still around.  Lots of people believe God created.  The question is how.  The answer is:  God did not create according to a literal interpretation of Genesis (creationism).  If a deity created, then it created by evolution.

There is no evidence I am aware of that God has acted on creation by directly selecting individuals.  You have such evidence?

The concept of evolution was around before Darwin. Darwin did two things: showed that evolution -- descent with modification -- had actually happened and found the algorithm to get the design (natural selection) seen in biological organisms.  Those two are enough to earn Darwin all the fame that he has gotten.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Can't do that. It's tested and supported.  Not falsified.

Oh, it's been falsified, but they keep reshuffling the deck. So you start out with 52 cards and now your down to maybe 25 or 26 of them that are still left.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by lucaspa
"Creation" is still around.  Lots of people believe God created.  The question is how.

For most christians the "How" is not that important. It is science that has to take their "facts" and get their theorys to line up with the Bible. The burden is not really on the church to do that.

Why should we follow after you and clean up your messes?

 

[notto]

Originally posted by Micaiah

Mary Leakey on the constructing of the family trees: "... in the present state of knowledge, I do not believe it is possible to fit the known hominid fossils into a reliable pattern. [Brigitte Senut "Humural Outlines in Some Hominoid Primates and in Plio-pleistocene Hominids" American Journal of Physical Anthropology 56:3 (November 1981): 275-83]

Do you have a source for this cite? did it come from a Creationist source? Can you provide the context around this quote so we can get a better sense of what is implied?

LOL! Have you read some of Senut's stuff as to why this quote was included? Senuts work (as well as Leakeys) continue to put nails in the creationist coffin everyday.

Also, notice the date - over 20 years ago. Try to keep up. (By the way, Mary Leaky died of old age over 5 years ago. If you bothered to look into any of her real work, you would be able to see that that quote is taken out of context.

for some recent Senut info . . .
http://www.esi-topics.com/fbp/comments/december-01-Brigitte-Senut.html